-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
if a person's gender or lack thereof was a matter of military readiness, we need to have the conversation about women in the armed forces again. 
being identified in one form or another as transgender doesn't necessarily mean a person is medically & physically unfit to serve. if it were about military readiness, we would be talking about requiring anyone seeking unnecessary, cosmetic 'surgeries' to defer them until they were discharged, & if it were about cost we would be talking about requiring any such people to pay out of their own pocket ((which i think is a most important point to be made: taxpayer dollars should not pay for any attempted gender reassignment))
but see, none of this makes sense. the solid arguments on this topic don't reasonably lead to banning all transgender people from service, and the arguments for doing it are irrational & or ideological.
the idea of the whole thing being a stab at unblocking an argument in congress so money for his wall can try to get appropriated, and simultaneously drumming up his ultra right-wing base & momentarily grabbing and directing the attention of the nation away from the election-tampering investigation, doesn't seem far-fetched to me. obfuscation & misdirection is 'the art of the deal'
being identified in one form or another as transgender doesn't necessarily mean a person is medically & physically unfit to serve. if it were about military readiness, we would be talking about requiring anyone seeking unnecessary, cosmetic 'surgeries' to defer them until they were discharged, & if it were about cost we would be talking about requiring any such people to pay out of their own pocket ((which i think is a most important point to be made: taxpayer dollars should not pay for any attempted gender reassignment))
but see, none of this makes sense. the solid arguments on this topic don't reasonably lead to banning all transgender people from service, and the arguments for doing it are irrational & or ideological.
the idea of the whole thing being a stab at unblocking an argument in congress so money for his wall can try to get appropriated, and simultaneously drumming up his ultra right-wing base & momentarily grabbing and directing the attention of the nation away from the election-tampering investigation, doesn't seem far-fetched to me. obfuscation & misdirection is 'the art of the deal'
Last edited:
if a person's gender or lack thereof was a matter of military readiness, we need to have the conversation about women in the armed forces again.
being identified in one form or another as transgender doesn't necessarily mean a person is medically & physically unfit to serve. if it were about military readiness, we would be talking about requiring anyone seeking unnecessary, cosmetic 'surgeries' to defer them until they were discharged, & if it were about cost we would be talking about requiring any such people to pay out of their own pocket ((which i think is a most important point to be made: taxpayer dollars should not pay for any attempted gender reassignment))
but see, none of this makes sense. the solid arguments on this topic don't reasonably lead to banning all transgender people from service, and the arguments for doing it are irrational & or ideological.
the idea of the whole thing being a stab at unblocking an argument in congress so money for his wall can try to get appropriated, and simultaneously drumming up his ultra right-wing base & momentarily grabbing and directing the attention of the nation away from the election-tampering investigation, doesn't seem far-fetched to me. obfuscation & misdirection is 'the art of the deal'
being identified in one form or another as transgender doesn't necessarily mean a person is medically & physically unfit to serve. if it were about military readiness, we would be talking about requiring anyone seeking unnecessary, cosmetic 'surgeries' to defer them until they were discharged, & if it were about cost we would be talking about requiring any such people to pay out of their own pocket ((which i think is a most important point to be made: taxpayer dollars should not pay for any attempted gender reassignment))
but see, none of this makes sense. the solid arguments on this topic don't reasonably lead to banning all transgender people from service, and the arguments for doing it are irrational & or ideological.
the idea of the whole thing being a stab at unblocking an argument in congress so money for his wall can try to get appropriated, and simultaneously drumming up his ultra right-wing base & momentarily grabbing and directing the attention of the nation away from the election-tampering investigation, doesn't seem far-fetched to me. obfuscation & misdirection is 'the art of the deal'
I still can't believe the women's draft question at a the Republican debate.
Half the candidates were just repeating idiotic bromides of "I tell my daughter she can do anything she likes."
We're not talking hopes and dreams, you morons. We're talking about forced conscription of women. It's immoral.
The only one with any sense that night was Ted Cruz.
Half the candidates were just repeating idiotic bromides of "I tell my daughter she can do anything she likes."
We're not talking hopes and dreams, you morons. We're talking about forced conscription of women. It's immoral.
The only one with any sense that night was Ted Cruz.
D
What the Bible has to say about it:
Matt. 19:[FONT="]3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[/FONT][FONT="]6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[/FONT][FONT="]10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”[/FONT]
Matt. 19:[FONT="]3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?”[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[/FONT][FONT="]6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.[/FONT][FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”[/FONT][FONT="]10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”[/FONT]
R
There's a difference between the public knowing more about a topic than officials and officials knowing absolutely nothing. Clearly whoever was in charge of speaking to the Press wasn't even given a five minute briefing or a short statement about the decision. Our generals may not be perfect but I trust them enough to think they've been through too many media outcries to not prepare for...well, anything.